Climate continues to change.

[4est_4est_Gump]

I'm not the one who gets defensive and plays the victim when asked for cites. If you want cites, I'll gladly give them, but keep in mind, I asked you to back up your claims first. After years of reading your posts you won't post a cite, you have nothing to back you up.

I used a deep and long-studied understanding of economics and the effects of sudden change coupled with the failures of Interventions of our lives to come up with my answer to your challenge that was not a question (you seem to be very defensive about that point). You did not ask me for anything other than what I thought and then you demand a cite for my thoughts instead of having a discussion.

You are even more defensive because you refuse to answer questions.

You want everyone to play your game, but you don't play.

You just declare victory.

This gambit has been so done to death that all of us knew where you were going with it and had a good laugh at your expense.

Do you think we should go to zero emissions right now?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

I used a deep and long-studied understanding of economics and the effects of sudden change coupled with the failures of Interventions of our lives to come up with my answer to your challenge that was not a question (you seem to be very defensive about that point). You did not ask me for anything other than what I thought and then you demand a cite for my thoughts instead of having a discussion.

You are even more defensive because you refuse to answer questions.

You want everyone to play your game, but you don't play.

You just declare victory.

This gambit has been so done to death that all of us knew where you were going with it and had a good laugh at your expense.

Do you think we should go to zero emissions right now?

Oh, so now it's your thoughts? So it's your thought that carbon emissions are doing no more to air quality than a forest fire or volcanic activity? If it's your thought there is no discussion to be had on it, we can't really have a discussion on your thoughts that come from nowhere.

I'm not playing a game. I haven't declared victory. If you have a question I'll gladly answer it, but as for right now you don't have a question, you're just firing off questions to try to cover for the fact that you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about and avoid providing a cite.

Provide the cite and I'l gladly answer any question you have. If you're just going to post your thoughts we can't really have a discussion.

 

[Que]

I'm not the one who gets defensive and plays the victim when asked for cites. If you want cites, I'll gladly give them, but keep in mind, I asked you to back up your claims first. After years of reading your posts you won't post a cite, you have nothing to back you up.

You cannot offer "cites" for a position you do not tender.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Oh, so now it's your thoughts? So it's your thought that carbon emissions are doing no more to air quality than a forest fire or volcanic activity? If it's your thought there is no discussion to be had on it, we can't really have a discussion on your thoughts that come from nowhere.

I'm not playing a game. I haven't declared victory. If you have a question I'll gladly answer it, but as for right now you don't have a question, you're just firing off questions to try to cover for the fact that you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about and avoid providing a cite.

Provide the cite and I'l gladly answer any question you have. If you're just going to post your thoughts we can't really have a discussion.

I answered your question and asked you a series of questions none of which you have "gladly" answered.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Let's forget about temperature for a moment. Tell everyone if you think we should continue burning fossil fuels knowing what they are doing to the quality of our air.

You should forget about the temperature.

Given that the other option is to destroy the economy, yes.

Progress is the only way to come up with the technology that changes the paradigm.

They are not doing to the quality of the air much more than the backdrop of things such as natural fires, cooking fires, volcanic activity, which researches now say is cooling us because of putting sulfuric acid into the air. And just last month, the news from the Gaiaists was that the reason we were not experiencing warming is because it was hiding in the ocean. It is very clever that way.

It's not a question.

Of course you have cites for all of that information.

You cannot offer "cites" for a position you do not tender.

That's what makes this so damned funny...

He didn't demand that I lay out a scientific theory, he asked me to tell him what I thought. I did.

Then you have to have a cite for your thoughts. On his most brilliant days, Mike Yates doesn't get anywhere near this level of hilarity.

 

[Que]

Notwithstanding Spidey's efforts to sidetrack the debate on global warming, let's DO talk about temperature:

http://thefederalist.com/2015/01/19/global-warming-most-dishonest-year-on-record/

If 2014 is supposed to be “hotter” than previous years, it’s important to ask: by how much?
You can spend a long time searching through press reports to get an actual number on this—which is a scandal unto itself. Just saying one year was “hotter” or “the hottest” is a vague qualitative description. It isn’t science. Science runs on numbers. You haven’t said anything that is scientifically meaningful until you state how much warmer this year was compared to previous years—and until you give the margin of error of that measurement.

Actual possible increase in temperature? Two one HUNDREDTHS of a degree. Margin of error? One TENTH of a degree. In other words, it was not, statistically speaking hotter. It was statistically possible that it was marginally hotter to an imperceptible degree.

This NASA press release shows that the "Science" at NASA is not politicized at all. No, sir!

Cue up Spidey:

"What do you think would happen if your core body temperature rose .02 degrees Celsius and STAYED THAT WAY!???"

 

[phrodeau]

Notwithstanding Spidey's efforts to sidetrack the debate on global warming, let's DO talk about temperature:

http://thefederalist.com/2015/01/19/global-warming-most-dishonest-year-on-record/



Actual possible increase in temperature? Two one HUNDREDTHS of a degree. Margin of error? One TENTH of a degree. In other words, it was not, statistically speaking hotter. It was statistically possible that it was marginally hotter to an imperceptible degree.

This NASA press release shows that the "Science" at NASA is not politicized at all. No, sir!

Cue up Spidey:

"What do you think would happen if your core body temperature rose .02 degrees Celsius and STAYED THAT WAY!???"

Where are the studies to support your view? Your opinion doesn't pass peer-review muster.

 

[trysail]

NOAA has just committed fraud on the U.S. public.




While loudly proclaiming 2014 to be "the warmest year" because it was 0.04°C (that's right, folks, ZERO POINT ZERO FOUR DEGREES) warmer than the dubious previous warmest year, NOAA completely forgot to mention that the margin of error is +/- 0.09°C—

in other words, THEY DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW if 2014 was the warmest year or not (but that didn't stop them from making the claim).​

It is a sorry state of affairs when a U.S. government science-based agency makes scientifically INACCURATE statements— but that's what's happened to NOAA.






​

 

[phrodeau]

NOAA has just committed fraud on the U.S. public.




While loudly proclaiming 2014 to be "the warmest year" because it was 0.04°C (that's right, folks, ZERO POINT ZERO FOUR DEGREES) warmer than the dubious previous warmest year, NOAA completely forgot to mention that the margin of error is +/- 0.09°C—

in other words, THEY DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW if 2014 was the warmest year or not (but that didn't stop them from making the claim).​

It is a sorry state of affairs when a U.S. government science-based agency makes scientifically INACCURATE statements— but that's what's happened to NOAA.






​

Where are the studies to support your view? Your opinion doesn't pass peer-review muster.

 

[Que]

Where are the studies to support your view? Your opinion doesn't pass peer-review muster.

It was NASA data. NASA just didn't bother to include the actual NASA figures with the press release you are all excited about.

FWIW your "peers" are political hacks, not serious, carefull scientists, else they would never have issued a press release like that where the temperature "gain" was well within the margin of error.

Since maths is not a strength with you I will give you an analogy. Imagine that a poll is taken the margin for error is 10%. Candidate A leads by ½%. The headline is "Too Close To Call!" not, "Candidate A is Crushing Candidate B!"

 

[Que]

BTW. Also in that article that you didn't read because your only interest in climate "science" is how dumb you think it makes the infidels that refuse to bow in prayer to it was a very good point. Even if, for the sake of discussion, it was the hottest year since (merely) 1880, it is nowhere near as hot as the least alarmist models have predicted. The important news is the there still has been no signifigant warming in 20 years and all of the climate models are demontrably wrong, which goes to show climate scientists do not have s handle in the least on even the variables that shap climate, much less the degree to which each one does.

You belive in a myth of settled science, when so far, scientists are not even sure what the right questions are.

 

[Sean]

The important news is the there still has been no signifigant warming in 20 years.

This is a lie.

 

[JohnnySavage]

This is a lie.

Look at the last few posts in his liquid floride reactor thread.

 

[Que]

~checks his pants~ Nope. No signifigant heat coming frome my pants.

Might want to keep a busket of water handy since, "This is a lie," is a lie.

 

[klippert]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaJJtS_WDmI



http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/21/us-science-climate-idUSBREA0K1TM20140121

What the media has left out... and they will never tell you this... NASA, later revised that document...saying they were 38% sure, this is correct... don't for get these are surface temperatures....which are suspect any way

I'll ask you this...If some told you a bridge was out along one of two roads...to which, You asked "which one"...."person says the the one on the right"...."Are you sure" you ask.....He says: " I'm 38% sure"... Since your a sucker for Climax change...You'd happily drive down the road on the right....those fuckers At NASA are 62% WRONG...and 100% bullshitting for funding

 

[Sean]

Look at the last few posts in his liquid floride reactor thread.

Why is it that basic science is anathema to the RWCJ?

 

[Que]

Why is it that basic science is anathema to the RWCJ?

Why are lingustics anathema to the LWCJ?

 

[phrodeau]

One thing has definitely changed. The denialist side has gone from "taint so" to "mebbe so, mebbe not", since they have no evidence to support the "taint so" arguments.

 

[Que]

One thing has definitely changed. The denialist side has gone from "taint so" to "mebbe so, mebbe not", since they have no evidence to support the "taint so" arguments.

You are really bad at science. You cannot prove a negative. Taint so was never a provable possibility, other than to wait it out and laugh in 500 years at people like you.

What we can show is that your prophets of the settled science have been wrong by wide margins on all of their predictions this far.

 

[phrodeau]

You are really bad at science. You cannot prove a negative. Taint so was never a provable possibility, other than to wait it out and laugh in 500 years at people like you.

What we can show is that your prophets of the settled science have been wrong by wide margins on all of their predictions this far.

Proving that global temps haven't changed isn't proving a negative. You're really bad at logic.

 

[Que]

Proving that global temps haven't changed isn't proving a negative. You're really bad at logic.

Over what period of time? 134 years?

Proving that that is inconsequential is math. You aren't interested in math, though.

Still believe the hockey-stick, or do you now understand that graph is a fabrication?

 

[Wrong Element]

If ever there was any doubt that NOAA has been politicized and has an agenda, the latest "science (propaganda) by press release" should remove any lingering doubt.





While loudly proclaiming 2014 to be "the warmest year" because it was 0.04°C (that's right, folks, ZERO POINT ZERO FOUR DEGREES) warmer than the dubious previous warmest year, NOAA completely forgot to mention that the margin of error is +/- 0.09°C—

in other words, THEY DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW if 2014 was the warmest year or not (but that didn't stop them from making the claim).​

It is a sorry state of affairs when a U.S. government science-based agency makes scientifically INACCURATE statements— but that's what's happened to NOAA.






​

NOAA has just committed fraud on the U.S. public.




While loudly proclaiming 2014 to be "the warmest year" because it was 0.04°C (that's right, folks, ZERO POINT ZERO FOUR DEGREES) warmer than the dubious previous warmest year, NOAA completely forgot to mention that the margin of error is +/- 0.09°C—

in other words, THEY DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW if 2014 was the warmest year or not (but that didn't stop them from making the claim).​

It is a sorry state of affairs when a U.S. government science-based agency makes scientifically INACCURATE statements— but that's what's happened to NOAA.






​

It is a sorry state of affairs when I can remember that you've already posted a certain "fact" and you apparently can't.

 

[phrodeau]

Over what period of time? 134 years?

Proving that that is inconsequential is math. You aren't interested in math, though.

Still believe the hockey-stick, or do you now understand that graph is a fabrication?

Plot the data points. Include the range of the margin of error. Go back 1,000 years if you like. Then look at the result.

That's all I ask. Do some science instead of spewing other people's opinions and scoffing at scientific methods.

 

[Que]

Plot the data points. Include the range of the margin of error. Go back 1,000 years if you like. Then look at the result.

That's all I ask. Do some science instead of spewing other people's opinions and scoffing at scientific methods.

You realize there are no "data points" of temperature recordings older than 134 years? That the very likely possibility of higher temperatures in earlier periods prior to the mini ice age from tree-rings, ice core samples and anecdotal evidence in recorded history about such things as crops and snowfall were disregarded for the hockey stick?

"Do some science?"

Really?

Where is your lab journal for your repeatable experiments?

Your opinions are your own?

Really?

Based on navel gazing?

Tell me more about your "research" involving your "scientific methods."

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Where are the studies to support your view? Your opinion doesn't pass peer-review muster.

Where are the studies to support your view? Your opinion doesn't pass peer-review muster.

The data supports out view. NASA was appalled by the spin on the original report and made sure that those of us in the Sciences understood the probability that the years was no warmer than any other. The very thing you are relying on to advance your cause is the peer-reviewed, and you do not even really seem to understand what that is, research that we are using.